The Evolution of Predictive Analytics: Machine Learning and the Predictive Step in Empirical Asset Pricing—From Factor Zoo to Factor Refinery
Main Article Content
Keywords
machine learning, asset pricing, factor zoo, out-of-sample prediction, evaluation framework
Abstract
In the last fifty years, empirical asset pricing has depended on a consistent knowledge-production pipeline: economic theory first suggests hypotheses, hypotheses are then operationalised through candidate factors, and the validity of those hypotheses is finally determined by in-sample statistical significance. As the number of candidate factors grows into the hundreds, this pipeline is no longer a reliable way of identifying genuine factors among data-mined false positives. Organised around four steps — testing, construction, discovery, and integration — the paper argues that machine learning has established, alongside the conventional pricing tests, an evaluation framework based on out-of-sample predictive performance. This does not mean, however, that the out-of-sample evaluation framework is a substitute for alpha, GRS, or risk-price tests. The main thesis is that machine learning has made genuine instrumental advances in prediction-based tasks, but cannot be regarded as a substitute for causal inference or mechanistic explanation; its benefits are real but restricted, and its drawbacks (loss of interpretability, conflation of correlation with causation, and overfitting) are significant. A more precise statement is thus not that machine learning has changed empirical asset pricing, but that it has changed the mode of execution of prediction-related tasks within the field without changing the basic logic of understanding-related tasks.
References
- [1]Cochrane, J. H. (2011). Presidential address: Discount rates. The Journal of Finance, 66(4), 1047–1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01671.x.
- [2]Harvey, C. R., Liu, Y., & Zhu, H. (2016). … and the cross-section of expected returns. The Review of Financial Studies, 29(1), 5–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhv059.
- [3]Hou, K., Xue, C., & Zhang, L. (2020). Replicating anomalies. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2019–2133. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy131.
- [4]Chen, A. Y., & Zimmermann, T. (2022). Open source cross-sectional asset pricing. Critical Finance Review, 11(2), 207–264. https://doi.org/10.1561/104.00000112.
- [5]Jensen, T. I., Kelly, B., & Pedersen, L. H. (2023). Is there a replication crisis in finance? The Journal of Finance, 78(5), 2465–2518. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13249.
- [6]Feng, G., Giglio, S., & Xiu, D. (2020). Taming the factor zoo: A test of new factors. The Journal of Finance, 75(3), 1327–1370. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12883.
- [7]McLean, R. D., & Pontiff, J. (2016). Does academic research destroy stock return predictability? The Journal of Finance, 71(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12365.
- [8]Fama, E. F., & MacBeth, J. D. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 607–636. https://doi.org/10.1086/260061.
- [9]Gibbons, M. R., Ross, S. A., & Shanken, J. (1989). A test of the efficiency of a given portfolio. Econometrica, 57(5), 1121–1152. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913625.
- [10]Lewellen, J., Nagel, S., & Shanken, J. (2010). A skeptical appraisal of asset pricing tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 96(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.09.001.
- [11]Jegadeesh, N., Noh, J., Pukthuanthong, K., Roll, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Empirical tests of asset pricing models with individual assets: Resolving the errors-in-variables bias in risk premium estimation. Journal of Financial Economics, 133(2), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.02.010.
- [12]Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2020). Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2223–2273. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa009.
- [13]Chinco, A., Clark-Joseph, A. D., & Ye, M. (2019). Sparse signals in the cross-section of returns. The Journal of Finance, 74(1), 449–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12733.
- [14]Bianchi, D., Büchner, M., & Tamoni, A. (2021). Bond risk premiums with machine learning. The Review of Financial Studies, 34(2), 1046–1089. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa062.
- [15]Kelly, B. T., & Pruitt, S. (2015). The three-pass regression filter: A new approach to forecasting using many predictors. Journal of Econometrics, 186(2), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.02.011.
- [16]Kelly, B. T., Pruitt, S., & Su, Y. (2019). Characteristics are covariances: A unified model of risk and return. Journal of Financial Economics, 134(3), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.05.001.
- [17]Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2021). Autoencoder asset pricing models. Journal of Econometrics, 222(1), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.07.009.
- [18]Bryzgalova, S., Pelger, M., & Zhu, J. (2020). Forest through the trees: Building cross-sections of stock returns. Working paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3493458.
- [19]Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 58(1), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x.
- [20]Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. (2011). When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-Ks. The Journal of Finance, 66(1), 35–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01625.x.
- [21]Jiang, J., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2023). (Re-)Imag(in)ing price trends. The Journal of Finance, 78(6), 3193–3249. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13268.
- [22]Lopez-Lira, A., & Tang, Y. (2026). Can ChatGPT forecast stock price movements? Return predictability and large language models. Journal of Financial Economics, 184, 104335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2026.104335.
- [23]Giglio, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2022). Factor models, machine learning, and asset pricing. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 14, 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-101521-104735.
- [24]Asness, C. S., Moskowitz, T. J., & Pedersen, L. H. (2013). Value and momentum everywhere. The Journal of Finance, 68(3), 929–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12021.
- [25]Cochrane, J. H., & Piazzesi, M. (2005). Bond risk premia. American Economic Review, 95(1), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828053828581.
- [26]Chordia, T., Goyal, A., Nozawa, Y., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2017). Are capital market anomalies common to equity and corporate bond markets? An empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(4), 1301–1342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109017000515.
- [27]Giglio, S., & Xiu, D. (2021). Asset pricing with omitted factors. Journal of Political Economy, 129(7), 1947–1990. https://doi.org/10.1086/714090.
- [28]Liu, J., Stambaugh, R. F., & Yuan, Y. (2019). Size and value in China. Journal of Financial Economics, 134(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.03.008.
- [29]Li, Z., Yang, G., Feng, Y., & Jing, L. (2017). An empirical test of the Fama–French five-factor model in the Chinese stock market [in Chinese]. Journal of Financial Research, 444(6), 191–206.
- [30]Zhao, S., Yan, H., & Zhang, K. (2016). Does the Fama–French five-factor model outperform the three-factor model? Evidence from the Chinese A-share market [in Chinese]. Nankai Economic Studies, (2), 41–59.
- [31]Kelly, B. T., Palhares, D., & Pruitt, S. (2023). Modeling corporate bond returns. The Journal of Finance, 78(4), 1967–2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13233.
